Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300915But really, I don't think we're talking about the speed of a bear, in most cases. It's more like, "How many guards are on the wall?",  "Does the suspect you're tailing give you the shake?", "Does the sheriff listen to you when you tell him about the zombies?", "Do you get in trouble with the authorities for beating up the janitor when you were caught sneaking around the professor's lab?", "Is the secret formula in the safe?"

The latter cases aren't really a matter of GM fiat, though, aren't? I mean, it isn't fiat if the GM is operating wholly within his or her bailiwick.

Seanchai

Ah, I think you'll find that a lot of people who rail against "GM Fiat" are talking about exactly those things. I haven't seen the RPGnet thread that inspired OHT to make the OP of this thread, though.

Quote from: howandwhy99;300936Roleplaying is competitive, that's why we have tournaments.  They are team competitions against a preset situation.  Roleplaying is all about displays of skill and ingenuity.

The RPGs I've ran for the last 30+ years have not been at all competitive. With few exceptions, the players in these campaigns did not play in tournaments because they had no interest in competitive RPG play. Most (including myself) thought the idea was somewhat silly.
 

QuoteThat's the GM cheating.  And bad play.  Players can no longer win except to guess the GM's decision making.

There has never been a "winner" or "loser" among the many players I'd had in my campaigns. The players aren't even competing with each other -- although sometimes their characters are in some type of competition with each other in the game.

QuoteThis isn't about narrowing the definition of "game" to exclude how any person or person likes to play RPGs.  It simply is the definition every game of every type uses.  And RPGs have glossed over this to the hobby's detriment.

Yes, RPGs aren't games in the same way chess or poker is a game. IMHO, this is what makes RPGs fun. This is one of the reasons rules lawyers aren't allowed in my games.  They try to turn RPGs into to normal games.

Really, the whole argument is centered around what each and everyone understands when saying "GM Fiat".

I started posting while thinking "GM Fiat" meant "the GM overrides the rules, makes up rules, or makes a decision on his own, without the support of the rules". A GM making judgment calls which may be reasonable, principled, grounded. That, to me, makes complete sense.

To some people, "GM Fiat" seems to mean "any arbitrary decision of the GM, aka determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle", according to the dictionary definition of "arbitrary". When one understands the term in that way, it's a self-fulfilling statement that "GM Fiat is bad", since the decision is not necessary, not reasonable and/or not backed up by anything other than the GM's whim. That's a non-starter for a debate, in my opinion.

What's strange is that some people seem to assume that all decisions made by a GM are by definition "GM Fiat", and that therefore, the GM should never override the rules or try to make reasonable, common sense decisions that may override the rules on some occasions. The rules should always be right. That's a shortcut that I only can explain by past experiences that would have created this belief that whatever decision a GM take, it's gonna be "GM Fiat". I just do not agree with this belief.

That's what this whole discussion comes down to, IMO.

Quote from: Benoist;300982What's strange is that some people seem to assume that all decisions made by a GM are by definition "GM Fiat", and that therefore, the GM should never override the rules or try to make reasonable, common sense decisions that may override the rules on some occasions.

No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300983No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

I really think that the whole thing stems from a disagreement on what the term actually means.

Now, since you understand the term as "arbitrary GM rulings", I have to agree with you that GM Fiat is a bad. It can't be good, by definition.

I would also add that any GM who uses GM Fiat time and time again is by definition a bad GM, since there cannot be any consistency, coherence or reasonable approach to the game play from the players' point of view, other than its inherent randomness.

I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue. The GM should build trust with the players by being consistent, reasonable, and principled in his rulings. This allows the players to know what to expect most of the time, and to get over instances where the rulings end up not meeting their expectations.

Quote from: Benoist;300984I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue.

I think the quickest way to deal with that is to, whenever making a discretionary ruling, retain it, and use it in all future instances of that situation. In that manner, you create precedents that the players know, so they won't be forced to metagame by trying to guess what you're going to rule.

Of course, if the ruling is bad in the first place, keeping it won't help much. But that's why it's better to have a solid set of rules in the first place that obviate the need for too many houserules.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300983No, although many people are defending GM Fiat in that context.

Note that "fiat" is never a term used when a ruling is reasonable or which has a solid foundational base.  The term is only used when something is unreasonable and groundless.

Notice that many of the defenses of GM Fiat in this thread assume that anytime GM Fiat is good, then it's a legitimate example of the practice.  Any time GM Fiat is bad, then the defenders insist it is not GM Fiat.  It's just some bad GM who never plays.

I said earlier that "GM fiat" is a tool, which can be either good or bad based on how it is used. A good GM will use it in the appropriate manner while a bad GM will use it in an inappropriate manner. You have redefined the term "GM fiat" to only be used in examples of bad GMing. Part of the problem here is your own homemade semantics.

You also still haven't given any examples of your own definition of "GM fiat" in actual game play that you have had.

Quote from: The Worid;300986I think the quickest way to deal with that is to, whenever making a discretionary ruling, retain it, and use it in all future instances of that situation. In that manner, you create precedents that the players know, so they won't be forced to metagame by trying to guess what you're going to rule.

Agreed.

QuoteOf course, if the ruling is bad in the first place, keeping it won't help much. But that's why it's better to have a solid set of rules in the first place that obviate the need for too many houserules.

That's not my preference, because the "solid set of rules", if it comes with boons like the one you describes, also comes with its own share of flaws (rules glut, more focus on metagaming, framing of the game play, more complicated game to get into for newbies, et cetera).

To me, keeping the bad rulings certainly won't help, and that's why it's better to communicate with the players and keep the feedback channel open at all times.

Generally, when I run the game, I obviously try to be fair, consistent and reasonable. If I make a call that doesn't compute with the players, I will generally discuss it with them after the session. The key ingredient here is to listen carefully and be ready to admit it when I'm wrong.

I've never had any problem doing this.

Quote from: Benoist;300984I guess that a relevant question coming to my mind then is: "how does a GM make sure that the players do not understand his rulings as instances of GM Fiat?", and there, I think I'm back to the trust issue. The GM should build trust with the players by being consistent, reasonable, and principled in his rulings. This allows the players to know what to expect most of the time, and to get over instances where the rulings end up not meeting their expectations.

As I thought I said earlier, it's an agreement among the players.

For example, I wouldn't go into an Amber game expecting anything other than GM Fiat to drive proceedings.  On the other hand, a GM defining his game as "D&D4" would have to match the expectations for that game.  d20 rolls would be required to hit.  There would be hit point depletion by distinct rules, etc.

In the latter case, nothing happens purely by GM ruling.  Even those things which happen outside the framework of the rules occur by a sort of informal democratic process and within a non-arbitrary framework.  And things are consistent.  If something applies for someone it applies for everyone, and if it doesn't apply for everyone, there is a distinct reason why.

As such, GM Fiat (even as those mischaracterizing the term represent it) doesn't really apply for discussion of actual play.  The agreement of players at the table is a more important and tangible factor.  If it's GM Fiat and no one at the table cares about how much bullshit it is, is it really GM Fiat?  It's a purely theory based term.  Failing that, it's something used in discussion of commercial products to defend them based on qualities they don't have.

Quote from: Gabriel2;300990As I thought I said earlier, it's an agreement among the players.

For example, I wouldn't go into an Amber game expecting anything other than GM Fiat to drive proceedings.  On the other hand, a GM defining his game as "D&D4" would have to match the expectations for that game.  d20 rolls would be required to hit.  There would be hit point depletion by distinct rules, etc.

In the latter case, nothing happens purely by GM ruling.  Even those things which happen outside the framework of the rules occur by a sort of informal democratic process and within a non-arbitrary framework.  And things are consistent.  If something applies for someone it applies for everyone, and if it doesn't apply for everyone, there is a distinct reason why.

As such, GM Fiat (even as those mischaracterizing the term represent it) doesn't really apply for discussion of actual play.  The agreement of players at the table is a more important and tangible factor.  If it's GM Fiat and no one at the table cares about how much bullshit it is, is it really GM Fiat?  It's a purely theory based term.  Failing that, it's something used in discussion of commercial products to defend them based on qualities they don't have.

"It's this thing, or it's the opposite of this thing, or it's something else entirely, or it's not."

Fuck, dude, compared to you, Dubbya's "When we talk about peace, we're really talking about war" is a clarion of clarity.

Beer, out.

No true Scotsman rules this thread.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300995No true Scotsman rules this thread.

If it's not Scottish, it's CRRRRAP!

Anyway, I wanted to get back to this:

Quote from: Seanchai;300952Sure, but that doesn't mean folks still don't prefer option one.

(a) Yep, and there you have e.g. full-blown GURPS and probably some other games like D&D 3.5. Personally I like detailed games just fine, but my experience with roleplayers is that most of them can't be arsed to learn the rules in any kind of detail, and they end up seeing the rules as more arbitrary than common-sense rulings. (E.g. the player whose character dies because he never makes use of a Dodge option--the rules' balance is predicated on the notion that you'll actually take advantage of them.) Another issue with this approach, personally as a GM, is that I find myself pushed to make quick decisions. Given time I'm sure I can become completely fluent in a given rules set, but for a while at least the players are going to have to accept that I'll wing it from time to time.

But both those concerns are actually peripheral. No matter how much detail you include regarding facts like the speed of a bear, damage from falling, time you can survive without oxygen, the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"

This leaves two options. Either:

(b) Narrowly restrict the game to questions which can be answered by the rules. (If all the rules are about concrete stuff bearing on combat and exploration, then limit the game to dungeon crawls and wilderness exploration.)

(c) Create abstract rules to distribute and mediate discretionary authority in any situation.

Carry (b) beyond a certain point, and you might as well be playing a miniatures board game. Meanwhile (c) risks detaching the rules entirely from the fiction, and you still haven't solved the problem of somebody making a nonsensical or arbitrary ruling.

Personally my preference is a modicum of detail combined with trusting the GM to rule sensibly, not arbitrarily, on stuff not covered by the rules, including the "big picture" stuff. I'd also like to supplement that with (b) some "big picture" systems (Burning Wheel has got a few) and (c) some rules interpretations that pay heed to player intent (Talislanta talks about this; Dead of Night does, too). But I like to keep the GM as final arbiter of what's possible or reasonable in areas not covered by the letter of the rules.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;300998No matter how much detail you include regarding facts like the speed of a bear, damage from falling, time you can survive without oxygen, the "detailed" design approach still leaves out the "big picture" questions that frame a given situation--like "does the dude in the Cadillac intend to betray us?" and "if he does, do we find out before it happens?"

This leaves two options. Either:

(b) Narrowly restrict the game to questions which can be answered by the rules. (If all the rules are about concrete stuff bearing on combat and exploration, then limit the game to dungeon crawls and wilderness exploration.)

(c) Create abstract rules to distribute and mediate discretionary authority in any situation.

You need rules to tell you whether or not someone betrays you?

Secondly, those categories are a thinly veiled version "Things I Like/Things I Don't Like", based on phrasing. Moreover, I hardly see why limiting rules to things that actually need rules ("concrete stuff") somehow narrows what the system can be used to play.